M. Kannappan vs The State

David Annoussamy, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pollachi, dated 26-3-1985, condoning

the delay in filing the final report u/s 173, Crl. P.C , in respect of Crime No. 192 of 1977. Nesumam Police Station registered for offence u/s 25(l)

(a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The plea of the accused is that the matter was barred by limitation u/s 468, Crl.P.C.

The prosecution pleaded that it took a long time for obtaining the sanction and that the delay was explained thereby.

The court below accepted the explanation of the prosecution and condoned the delay. The alleged offence took place on 11.11.1976. The case

was registered on 26.8.1977. The application for sanction was made on 21.8.1979 and the sanction was obtained on 6.5.1981. The final report

dated 10.8.1981 was filed in Court on 11.8 1981. For the offence punishable u/s 25(l)(a) of the Arms Act, the period of limitation is three years.

That period starts from the date on which the offence was made known to the police officer as per Section 469, Code of Criminal Procedure The

total time taken between that date (11.11.1986) and the date of the final report is four years, eight months and 29 days. The time taken for

obtaining sanction, viz., 1 year, 8 months and 15 days has to be excluded as per Section 470, Crl. P.C. Even after exclusion of that time, there is

still a period of 14 days between the date of the commission of the offence and the date of the filing of the final report. No explanation whatsoever

was given by the prosecution for that period. Therefore, the bar u/s 468, Crl. P.C., operates.

It is wondered why in a case of such a simple nature, a period of one year eight months and fifteen days was required by the concerned

authorities to accord sanction.

With this observation, the revision is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. 98 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Pollachi, is quashed.